Looking further into the Bodhisattva stages, notice there's really no difference to the original teaching of the Buddha. The 52 Bodhisattva stages mentioned in the Mahayana's Avatamsaka Sutra is simply the elaboration on the vows and practice of an un-enlightened Bodhisatta before Complete Enlightenment. Even within Mahayana's doctrine, it is explicitly stated that after reaching the 51st stage, the Boddhisattva's still not done yet. THere's still that tinyest and subtlest level of delusion/ignorance that s/he would need to work on in order to completely eradicate it and move on to the 52nd stage, which is full Buddhahood. So, the reason a Bodhisattva "hang around" in this Samsara cannot exclusively be attributed to his compassionate vows to help sentient beings but also because there's still work left to be done to perfect his/her paramis. Looking from this angle, there's really no difference between Mahayana, Theravada, or Vajrayana..

After pondering upon "One perception arose in me as another one ceased", which occurred to Ven. Sariputta during the sphere of cessation of perception and feeling (AN 10.7 see viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8350&start=20), it appeared to me it’s not that there’s an eternal true nature/"Buddha nature”/"essence of mind”/"true self” existing together with mindconsciousness as our present awareness while in Samsara, but that only as consciousness (“waves”) ceases at the sphere of cessation of perception and feeling (and probably also at the death of an arahant), the transcendental awareness arises.

It seems to me that any meditative experience, except the transcendental awareness occurring at the cessation of perception and feeling, is still mind consciousness, and should not be identified/perceived as nibbanized mind/the ultimate goal. A lasting radiant citta is probably not an indication of the final enlightenment; a “free, vast, supremely empty, absolutely pure, boundless, totally expansive citta" should probably not be labeled as the end of the path as well. Uprooting of assavas probably does not depend upon the radiance of the mind or the disappearance of such radiance. Our effort should better be made to develop/purify the mind, to obtain right liberating insight knowledge (4NT and 3 characteristics) to end ignorance/craving/clinging and enter nibbana, instead of getting lost in mistaking mind consciousness as "pure citta".

Metta to all,

Starter

Last edited by starter on Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just looked at AN1 again and realized that the "luminous mind" freed from incoming defilements mentioned in AN1 is probably not the same mind as in the fourth jhāna, which is not yet free from incoming defilements -- such a mind still has the underline tendencies of greed/aversion/delusion since ignorance is not yet eradicated, and is still mind consciousness.

AN1:"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

It is important to be very clear on what "luminous" means. It can simply mean the mind free from hindrances. No need to make it eternal or anything like that.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Would it be better to translate the 6th type of vinnana as "mind consciousness (cognition) instead of "intellect consciousness"? The translation of "intellect consciousness" could lead to the failure of recognizing that a non-thinking mind during e.g. the 4th jhana or during a non-thinking mode at the present moment is actually still mind consciousness. The same applies to the translation of "intellect" instead of "mind", and "idea" instead of "mental phenomena". A mind can be absent of intellect, and mental phenomena includes not only idea -- it could be absent of idea. Such translations could be misleading.

"Pañña & Viññāṇa, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, Pañña is to be developed, Viññāṇa is to be fully comprehended." (MN 43)

I will expound you the Dhamma, bhikkhus, for the complete understanding of all upādāna. Listen to it. And what, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma for the complete understanding of all upādāna?

On account of the eye and visible forms, cakkhu·viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the eye, he is disgusted by visible forms, he is disgusted by the eye-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by eye-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.

On account of the ear and sounds, ear-viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the ear, he is disgusted by sounds, he is disgusted by the ear-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by ear-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.

On account of the nose and odors, nose-viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the nose, he is disgusted by odors, he is disgusted by the nose-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by nose-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.

On account of the tongue and tastes, tongue-viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the tongue, he is disgusted by tastes, he is disgusted by the tongue-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by tongue-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.

On account of the body and bodily phenomena, body-viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the body, he is disgusted by bodily phenomena, he is disgusted by the body-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by body-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.

On account of mana and dhammas, mana·viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by mana, he is disgusted by dhammas, he is disgusted by the mana·viññāṇa, he is disgusted by mana·phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.

This, Bhikkhus, is the Dhamma for the complete understanding of all upādāna.

I take from this sutta, that most of us beings really misapprehend consciousness to be either 'me' or 'mine', when really it's just part of the process described above (I don't know that for sure as yet, just to be clear). It's kind of disturbing, in a groovy kind of way.

There is no free floating consciousness. All consciousness is dependently coarisen. There is no consciousness that exist apart from its object even if its object is consciousness itself. Put in another way - To be aware/conscious, one has to be aware/conscious of something! Without the object, there is no subject.

"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.Sheaves of Reedhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

“Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus. For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness.

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, [260] it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.

Is there a hearer of sounds, separate from hearing and the heard? Where does hearing happen?

What actually hears? Where is the hearer located? Is it the eardrum, ear ossicles, cochlea, auditory nerve or brain? What is heard is nothing but vibrations. The "hearer" is an activity, not an entity.Really there is no ear either apart from its parts. This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no ear is found. Pure emptiness/sunyata.

On account of the ear and sounds, ear-viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the ear, he is disgusted by sounds, he is disgusted by the ear-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by ear-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'. http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samy ... 5-060.html

Why now do you assume 'a being'?Mara, have you grasped a view?This is a heap of sheer constructions:Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,The word 'chariot' is used,So, when the aggregates are present,There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,Suffering that stands and falls away.Nothing but suffering comes to be,Nothing but suffering ceases.

Vajira Sutta

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

The idea of a magic show, is to trick people into seeing something that isn't really happening, or isn't really there; it's about illusion. I'm not sure as to why the Buddha likened consciousness to this, but it could be that it kind of appears out of the meeting between sense and object (including mind and mind object), yet the impression almost everyone has (myself included, alas) it that "I am conscious, or "it is my consciousness". So, we are kind of tricked.

manas wrote:The idea of a magic show, is to trick people into seeing something that isn't really happening, or isn't really there; it's about illusion. I'm not sure as to why the Buddha likened consciousness to this, but it could be that it kind of appears out of the meeting between sense and object (including mind and mind object), yet the impression almost everyone has (myself included, alas) it that "I am conscious, or "it is my consciousness". So, we are kind of tricked.

I agree. This is what I meant in my first post of this thread. The sense of "self" is an illusion, the result of the "magic show" of consciousness due to avija. The defiled mind misinterprets and grasps the six sense consciousness and the other aggregates as "self". ... Why did the Buddha teach us that the mind consciousness is a "magic show"? As soon as sense consciousness is generated and the mind becomes aware of an "external" object, it discriminates this object from itself as separate and other than itself, and differentiate between itself as the subject and the sensed "external" (separated) as the object, which creates a sense of "self". It grasps the five aggregates as "self" because they are "internal" (non-separated) from it.

By the way, I like "mental phenomena" better than "mind objects"; mind objects can be body and etc.